Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
    Alex
    @nuevoalex
    Just one more before logging off for the night: will the /v2/safes/{address}/funded endpoint eventually have the same data as the v1 endpoint? if not is there a reason the funding data was removed?
    Alex
    @nuevoalex
    @rmeissner ping on these ;p
    Richard Meissner
    @rmeissner
    Thanks for the reminder @nuevoalex :D. So when thinking about it I was wondering how technical your target user would be. Could they perform the deployment transaction themselves ("simple" call to the proxy factory). In this case you would not have to worry about the payment parameter, and we would just need a way to register the Safe afterwards with our relay (if you want to use it). If you really want to use the relay for the deployment of the Safe, I still think the most feasible way would be that client could propose a price and if it meets our requirement we would accept it. Another solution would be that there is a way that somebody could sponsor a Safe, in this case the price could be constant. I still feel that I am missing the use case to figure out the best way.
    @Uxio0 could you provide support on the relay issues?

    /v2/safes/{address}/funded endpoint eventually have the same data as the v1 endpoint

    the v1 and v2 approach are very different and therefore it doesn't make sense to have the same data for both (see https://gnosis-safe.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contracts/deployment.html -> v2 makes use of create2 as described there)

    Uxío
    @Uxio0
    Hi @nuevoalex . I've seen that OverflowError before but It should be fixed, what version are you using for the local relay? Regarding the 0x02 address you can configure them in the .env file for docker-compose, I have just updated develop branch
    Uxío
    @Uxio0
    @nuevoalex By default now relay run with docker-compose should set up and configure all the contracts without need to touch configuration files
    Alex
    @nuevoalex
    @rmeissner Yea I think being able to propose the payment would work. The other params are essentially fixed (refundReceiver for example). We'd choose some "reasonable" payment and if the network is congested have some sort of backup payment and check those N potential safe addresses generated from our payments
    @Uxio0 I believe I was on master at the time I encountered the OverflowError
    We're targeting a user that may have absolutely 0 knowledge of crypto ideally. Manual safe creation through the proxy wouldn't work for them
    Trying to create that fabled magical UX ;p
    bamos01
    @bamos01
    Hi- I need to restore my safe but my 12 word back up phrase is not working.
    My iphone is water damaged. Do you think if the data could be extracted from the damaged phone the safe could work on a restored device?
    I also have an icloud backup that i can restore to a new device. It shows the correct balances but the app crashes when I try to send a transaction
    Or is my only hope to send a transaction from the water damaged iphone itself
    Also- I'm very surprised by backup phrase isnt working. Im usually very careful with them. Do you think there could be any software issue in the iOS app that is preventing the backup phrase from working correctly?
    Uxío
    @Uxio0
    Hi @bamos01, could you try that 12 word back up in another application like metamask?
    Richard Meissner
    @rmeissner

    I need to restore my safe but my 12 word back up phrase is not working.

    Does the app display an error?

    I will also loop in our iOS team
    Richard Meissner
    @rmeissner
    @bamos01 did you also contact us on telegram?
    bamos01
    @bamos01
    @rmeissner yes
    The app says that the phrase is not correct for this safe
    Dmitry Bespalov
    @DmitryBespalov
    @bamos01 Hi, I’m iOS dev of the safe app, let me help you. Can we start a secret chat in Telegram? - I’ll need the safe address and the address that is generated by the recovery phrase (not the phrase itself) to troubleshoot the issue.
    @DmitryBespalov is my Telegram handle
    superern
    @superern

    Hi,

    Just wanted to know if the MultiSig-Wallets created via "Gnosis MultiSig wallet" can be imported to Gnosis-Safe-Team version and do all the usual approve/revoke confirmation we were used to.

    Uxío
    @Uxio0
    Hi @superern. Contracts from the Gnosis Multisig Wallet are different to the Gnosis Safe contracts, so the Gnosis Safe for Teams will not be able to import them. Currently we don't offer any way to automatically migrate
    Erik K
    @erak
    Hey, we just ran into a locally failing test with the optimizer being enabled (https://github.com/gnosis/safe-contracts/blob/development/test/gnosisSafeTransactionExecution.js#L85). Did someone experience the same?
    Andrew Redden
    @androolloyd
    Works without optimizer?
    Erik K
    @erak
    Yes
    Erik K
    @erak

    I turned on the optimizer in truffle.js:

    optimizer: {
      enabled: true
    },

    and then ran the following commands

    npm install
    npx truffle compile
    npm test

    which leads to

      ...
    
      48 passing (1m)
      1 failing
    
      1) Contract: GnosisSafe
          should only pay for gasprice used, up to specified for ETH:
    
          AssertionError: expected 16384 to equal 32768
          + expected - actual
    
          -16384
          +32768
    Alex
    @nuevoalex
    Hey all! Wanted to check in and see if the feature request to be able to specify payment was on the docket, or if I should do something more formal to request it ;p
    also just as a mental confirmation once we can provide that in theory we should be able to deterministically generate addresses that will be created using the relay before sending any request right?
    Richard Meissner
    @rmeissner
    Hey @erak this is expected since by turning on the optimizer you change the gas usage. We decided against using the optimizer for now and therefore our tests will not be adjusted for the optimizer.
    Hey @nuevoalex be able to specify payment was on the docket not sure what you mean? Our docker image should be up to date with the most current version, since we use docker to deploy our service to our servers.
    jvluso
    @jvluso
    I'm trying to get my dapp working with the gnosis safe, and need to sign typed data, but I'm getting the error finished is not a function . Has anyone here seen this before?
    Richard Meissner
    @rmeissner
    Safe currently doesn't support signing message, but we are working on it
    Erik K
    @erak
    @rmeissner Thanks! I left a comment on the issue.
    Alex
    @nuevoalex
    @rmeissner sorry for the phrasing. Previously we had discussed that we wanted to be able to determinstically generate a safe wallet address that would be generated for a user. This is almost possible with the relay API except that we cannot propose a specific payment
    For example we would like to be able to specify that the payment will be 1 DAI. This way we can know what the to-be-generated or already generated gnosis safe wallet address is for any given user in any context
    "on the docket" is an uncommon phrase that means "on a list of things to be considered" ;p
    Alex
    @nuevoalex
    Any feedback on this? I can make an issue and even donate time to do a PR for it if you all think its an ok idea
    Uxío
    @Uxio0
    Sorry @nuevoalex, I was on holidays and missed your message. Our public service does not allow to set a custom payment, as we decide what the payment is based on the costs of deployment
    But you can do it if you deploy a relay service yourself
    There's even a configuration value called SAFE_FIXED_CREATION_COST to allow you to do that
    Alex
    @nuevoalex
    @Uxio0 Would it be possible to ammend the API to accept a proposed payment and if it is equal or higher than what the relay would normally charge just accept it?
    We can't run a relay ourselves, though if needed maybe we could find a partner to do so and if so yea then specifying that in configuration would do fine
    Uxío
    @Uxio0
    @nuevoalex Well, we could be running into legal issues then as we will be making profit
    Besides that, what the relay "would normally charge" is changing all the time depending on the gas costs
    You can check here how different are the fees of the last deployed Safes https://etherscan.io/address/0x07F455F30e862E13E3E3D960762cB11c4F744d52
    Alex
    @nuevoalex
    Got it! Thanks for the responses